U.S. Attorney General voices concern over Apple's iOS 8 security features

Comments

... This complicates things for law enforcement agencies wanting to gain access to a suspect's smartphone, even if the proper warrants and documentation are supplied.

...

But doesn't NSA, FBI... serve you with secret warrants from a secret court where you will incriminate yourself by telling your lawyer that you were served the warrant because the warrant tells you that you are not allowed to tell anybody.

I'd like to voice my concerns over AG Eric Holder's stonewalling about Operation Fast & Furious, where the US Dept. of Justice forced American gun shops to sell firearms to known Mexican narco gangs. How many thousands died?

Holder reminds me of a little brat that yells at Mom because he doesn't like what his sibling is doing to distract her from the fact he's stealing cookies from the cookie jar. The entire Obama administration can take a long walk off a short plank as far as I'm concerned. They had help of course from previous administrations, but they have taken it to new heights of unconstitutionalism.

The US's CALEA act is worth review. This act of congress was passed in the 1994 and made stronger all during the Clinton Administration. (Apple Director, Al Gore probably knows about this law.)

This act of congress is already in place and there's possibly an applicable case law worth review. Back in the late 1990s, one local US telephone company, called "Qwest" was unable to provide lawful intercept capability to the Government under the 1994 act of congress.

Most likely, the reason for secrecy was related to financial crimes he was committing. Ultimately, the CEO of the company was found guilty, and served time in jail. As for the company, well, following a change in leadership, Qwest became compliant with the US law.

When your a company like Apple, and your company is based on a culture of secrecy, including mistrust of the US Government, and willful and wanton desire to forgo paying US taxes, it's certainly worth additional study.

In that particular case, the company's CEO is, and always will be, a convicted felon who was found guilty by a layperson jury, not the government. Time Magazing ranked the CEO #5 in a top-ten list of the "Most crooked CEOs of All Time".

Any time someone says some equivalent to "think of the children!" as a bullet point in their argument, I know that the rest of what comes out their mouth is some sort of fear mongering bullshit trying to convince me to give up my freedoms for some sense of security or safety. My data is my data. If you have a warrant to get at it, then you can take my device and do your best. But if I want to use crazy strong crypto to keep it from you, that's what I'm going to do, and too damn bad for you.

This. It's crazy how often this argument is used is used in modern politics, and it's disturbing how effective it is at turning people into sheep.

I almost think critical thinking is on its deathbed, and democracy won't be far behind.

I thought we were innocent until PROVEN guilty. If I ant to use PGP to encrypt my Hard Drive, that's my option. If I am accused of committing a crime, and you produce the warrant to view my cell phone - I have a very simple choice: Comply with the warrant, or go to jail.

The logic is simple. If Apple needs to add the backdoor for the US government, then it needs to add the backdoor for every government. It would be a logistic nightmare and a huge national security risk.

I can't believe I'm even saying this, but I actually agree. If the proper warrents are issued, I believe authorities ought to have a way to access a suspect's data. But Only if a warrent is issued. Otherwise, somebody get Mr. Holder and the head of the FBI a violin. lol.

Yes, because that's what would happen… The government would NEVER use it on normal Americans. Oh wait, they already did that.

Man don't you get it? You can't give them the keys to them csstle "a little bit".

Be interesting to see when the first "thumbprint" court case comes down the pike. For most of the encrypted iPhones, a mere thumbprint would probably be all that's required to access the device.

Also keep in mind that the encryption (and protection) only applies to data stored on the device and not on data mirrored to iCloud or Dropbox or some other cloud storage service. That information can be still be subpoenaed.

Yes, because that's what would happen… The government would NEVER use it on normal Americans. Oh wait, they already did that.

Man don't you get it? You can't give them the keys to them csstle "a little bit".

Please read my post. I said ONLY when a Warrant is issued. This Can be enforceable. If the FBI truly wants a back-door for them to access potentially harmful data, there are ways to go about it without giving the government the keys to "them csstle".

For example, now that their typical methods of gathering intel are challenged as a result of companies incorporating data encryption, big brother could use a fraction of that NSA budget to fund the implimentation of a discretionary council in companies like Apple. One that will run entirely outside of the government's control, but exist for the sole purpose of determining whether to allow government agencies access to data in the event that a proper warrant is issued.

Fear of 1984 is not a good reason to dismiss logic and reason. While I agree more than anyone that our freedoms are worth fighting for, I am certain that there are ways to ways to appease law enforcement in tangeant with protecting those freedoms. Again, just to Re-clarify- Warrants only...

Unfortunately, the ease and low threshold of what constitutes evidence to warrant a threat has dropped to the point that it is effectively meaningless. This suggests that with higher security levels that can be cracked the police et al need enough confidence that the "juice is with the squeeze" versus current process which is frequently seen as a fishing expedition.

Another point is that other nations have such low regard for US efforts for privacy that it is unclear if they would allow Apple to sell products, think Europe. MS being required to provide US law access to email on another countries servers and what would we say about the reverse, e.g., Chian asking for email on US servers.

Finally, what we consider legitmate law enforcement becomes dictatorial freedom of expression control in Iran, China, Russia, etc., and Apple would have not choice but to comply with local laws.

So Apple and other tech companies getting out of the middle of this legal, moral, and technical mess makes eminent sense.

The big danger is US Government or other Governments requiring Apple to create and maintain back doors. This would create a real nightmare.

Even if a warrant is issue, that is for the physical device. Because of the fifth amendment I don't have to do or reveal anything that might be considered self-incrimination. That's what they are afraid of. The moment anyone is served a warrant of any kind, they should immediately invoke the right to remain silent, the fifth amendment, and seek legal counsel.

That is why they want Appke etc to be forced to put in and keep in a back door.

Lawsuits have already said that you can't force someone to tell their passcode. So no one will

During a speech in front of the Global Alliance Against Child Sexual Abuse Online on Tuesday, Holder criticized Apple...

Holder is the one who backed off on prosecuting any new obscenity cases. It seems like giving everybody the green light to pour gas everywhere and then worrying that the fire lane is blocked is inconsistent.

On another note, I think it's very telling that he and Comey are 'voicing concerns' rather than taking immediate legal action. To me it says they know they don't have a leg to stand on, are grumpy about losing power, and are trying to drum up public support for something down the road (maybe legislative action declaring that we don't have the right to privacy, using 'think of the children' to wrench a bad law into the system that will probably do far more to harm innocent citizens than to protect children).

That said, I'm not saying that it's a good thing that horrible people may now have an easier time going undetected by law enforcement. I wish there were a way to guarantee that Big Brother wouldn't spy on it's own citizens sans warrant backed by reasonable suspicion AND that law enforcement could have access and tools needed to take down child predators. I just don't see how that's technically possible.

The big danger is US Government or other Governments requiring Apple to create and maintain back doors. This would create a real nightmare.

I don't think Apple will do it. They know that sooner or later someone would notice and then their reputation is shot. They aren't willing to take that risk. I think that if the gub'ment came to them on the quiet and said 'do it or else' they'd refuse, and maybe even make public the request.